SynthesisJournal of ultrasound2025
A systematic review of the effectiveness and the diagnostic accuracy of intraoperative ultrasound in the resection of low-grade gliomas.
Synthesis in Journal of ultrasound, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis systematic review aims to evaluate the effectiveness of intraoperative ultrasound (iUS) in achieving gross total resections (GTR) and identifying tumor remnants in low-grade glioma (LGG) surgeries.
methodsA search of Medline, Cochrane, and Scopus databases until 8th August 2024 was performed to retrieve relevant studies, while reference lists were also scanned. Studies were selected based on predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria, and their methodological quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) tool.
resultsThirteen studies were included: 1 prospective randomized controlled trial, 10 prospective studies and 2 retrospective studies. Of these, five studies had a high risk of bias, and eight had significant concerns regarding applicability. One study provided only mean volumes of tumor remnants, while the remaining 12 studies included a total of 352 patients. Eight studies used 2D B-mode iUS, and five used 3D navigated iUS. There was considerable variability in iUS characteristics, reference methods, and outcome measures. Linear array iUS generally demonstrated superior characteristics, and 3D iUS showed promising potential. Sensitivity ranged from 21.05% to 100%, and GTR percentages varied from 10.71% to 100%, while specificity ranged from 66.67% to 100%. Data on remnant volumes were available from only three studies.
conclusionsFrom the available literature no safe assumptions on neither the diagnostic accuracy nor the efficacy of iUS in LGG resections can be made.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.